After a 24-year marriage, the parties divorced in 2016. Relevant to this appeal, the parties submitted a separation agreement that provided that “Husband shall pay the Wife maintenance in the amount of $2,489.00 per month for a period of 138 months.”
The parties further agreed that “maintenance outlined herein is contractual in nature and shall be non-modifiable for any reason whatsoever by the Court. The Court shall not retain jurisdiction to modify the maintenance either in amount or duration.”
In 2018, Wife remarried. Husband then sought declaratory judgment that his spousal maintenance obligation terminated by operation of law upon Wife’s remarriage. A district court magistrate disagreed and denied Husband’s request, reasoning that the parties had made spousal maintenance non-modifiable in their separation agreement. Husband then petitioned the district court to review the magistrate’s order, but the district court affirmed the magistrate’s decision.
Husband appealed.
Modification of spousal maintenance versus termination of spousal maintenance
On appeal, Husband argued that the magistrate and district courts incorrectly applied the law and that the parties’ agreement to designate the spousal maintenance as non-modifiable did not affect conditions that ordinarily terminate spousal maintenance pursuant to statute.
The statute in question here is C.R.S. 14-10-122(2)(a). It states that “unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated upon the earlier of:
(I) The death of either party;
(II) The end of the maintenance term, unless a motion for modification is filed prior to the expiration of the term;
(III) The remarriage of or the establishment of a civil union by the party receiving maintenance; or
(IV) A court order terminating maintenance
So the central issue in this case, and several others like it, is the interpretation of “agreed in writing.” The Court of Appeals determined that a non-modifiability clause does not automatically prove the parties intended for spousal maintenance to survive remarriage or the other statutory termination conditions.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals analyzed and distinguished this case from previous opinions where other Court of Appeals divisions interpreted the statute more broadly and, in some cases, reached the opposite conclusion.
Because the divisions of the Court of Appeals function independently under Colorado law, the divisions are not bound by decisions of other divisions. This may seem counterintuitive and trust us, it can be frustrating or attorneys as well because it leads to different courts reaching different conclusions in cases involving similar fact patterns.
Conclusion
For purposes of understanding this case, the Cerrone opinion recognized an important distinction between termination of spousal maintenance by operation of law and ordinary modification of spousal maintenance based on substantial and continuing changes to circumstances. Still, this specific issue remains somewhat unsettled and likely to continue to be resolved inconsistently. Seemingly small details matter so much—that is why it is so important to seek counsel from an experienced family law attorney, even if you anticipate that you and your spouse can reach complete agreements amicably.